Ownership and the means of production

By prohibiting slavery, humans have accepted the concept that some things should not be owned. Has this limitation on ownership ever been applied to the means of production in a society? I mean complete prohibition of ownership, not shared ownership or ownership by some governing body, but the means of production being totally unownable. Why wouldn't it work?

I was just thinking of starting a little garden for anyone to use, where people can keep whatever they grow, but I don't want anyone to own anything in it (the tools, the original plants, etc.).

Staff: Mentor

Perhaps since the idea doesn't exist in real life, you could explain how it would work instead of asking for it to be explained why it wouldn't? The very idea just doesn't make logical sense to me. It sounds almost like gibberish to me. One obvoius question: In this garden, where do the tools and plants come from?

Staff: Mentor

What you are proposing *is* slavery. The prohibition of slavery is essentially the idea that a man has a right to the products of his own labor. If the means of production cannot be owned, then a man has no right to the products of his own labor. That is slavery, you have only replaced "the master" with "the masses".

Staff: Mentor

As Jase indicted it sounds to me like one is talking about a community garden. Usually one would own the land and then invite folks to put in some effort to cultivate the land, plant, tend, then harvest produce/crops. There are several such groups in my area. We give away extra produce we grow and some friends will give us something they've grown.

Staff: Mentor

I'm not sure what you mean. It sounds like you are saying that since the motives are obvious, it doesn't have anything to do with ownership. As I said, it isn't so much the deciding but the fighting that is the claim to ownership.

So the USA has claimed Iraq or the oil?

Click to expand...

We most certainly had ownership of Iraq and the oil. We are currently in the process of giving it back to the Iraqi people.

As others said, if I have the bigger gun, you can do nothing to stymie my claim to ownership of the garden.

I'm not sure what you mean. It sounds like you are saying that since the motives are obvious, it doesn't have anything to do with ownership. As I said, it isn't so much the deciding but the fighting that is the claim to ownership. We most certainly had ownership of Iraq and the oil. We are currently in the process of giving it back to the Iraqi people.

As others said, if I have the bigger gun, you can do nothing to stymie my claim to ownership of the garden.

Click to expand...

Let's make this garden the last garden. It’s easier to imagine anyone actually fighting another to own it. That there is a person or people who take advantage of the gardens produce as they do with other aspects of their environment, whether they are aware of it at all or have some notion of it they may or may not claim ownership. And there are others who would claim ownership of the garden through use of force. The claim may succeed. Unless the claim has the bigger gun the garden remains unowned. The fact I fight for something does not mean I own it.
I have fought for many reasons, sometimes just for fun.

Staff: Mentor

By prohibiting slavery, humans have accepted the concept that some things should not be owned. Has this limitation on ownership ever been applied to the means of production in a society? I mean complete prohibition of ownership, not shared ownership or ownership by some governing body, but the means of production being totally unownable. Why wouldn't it work?

I was just thinking of starting a little garden for anyone to use, where people can keep whatever they grow, but I don't want anyone to own anything in it (the tools, the original plants, etc.).

Click to expand...

I'd have to say no. To some extent there is a responsible person or group. In urban areas where people clean up vacant lots and have a communal garden, the city usually is the owner.

Finally, all community gardens have a structure. The organization depends in part on whether the garden is "top down" or "grassroots". There are many different organizational models in use for community gardens. Some elect boards in a democratic fashion, while others can be run by appointed officials. Some are managed by a Non-profit organizations, such as a community gardening association, a church, or other land-owner; others by a city's recreation or parks department, a school or University. In most cases, gardeners are expected to pay annual dues to help with garden upkeep, and the organization must manage these fees. The tasks in a community garden are endless - keeping up the area's appearance, mulching paths, recruiting new members, reminding members to tend plots when they get weedy, fundraising, the list goes on... Sensible rules and an 'operations manual' are both invaluable tools, and ideas for both are available at ACGA and other sites.

Back in the 60's "hippies" would move to "communes" where everything was supposedly shared. I knew a couple of people that did this, realised it didn't work in reality and moved out. It's just human nature for people to fall into leaders and followers. The leaders have more and get their way, the followers get screwed, although many are too meek to ever say anything or stand up for themselves.